I can't speak for everyone, especially after that court hearing, but it is widely accepted that villains make the story what they are. In a literal sense, they provide the antagonist of the story, driving through the conflict and actually making a story exist. In a figurative sense, they're the most profound and watchable characters with the best lines, songs and overall impact.
My favourite character in Snow White was the Queen. She was just so vile when she walked past a skeleton in her dungeon reaching for a jug that's just too far, then kicked the jug onto his dry remains with a cruel taunt and laugh. The most interesting, or at least popular, character in Batman is the Joker. Heck, my personal favourite portrayal in Wicked, a story about the wicked witch, was the Wizard, who filled the role of antagonist.
And this leads on to my main discussion point. Ever since wicked, people have been trying to humanize the villains into sympathetic characters by showing things from their point of view. People leap at the chance to show why the queen, a woman so vain and petty she lead many murder attempts towards a twelve year old, is secretly tragic.
In their defence, some villains benefit greatly from the portrayal. Wicked, for one, shows it can be done, and done spectacularly. Most villains need some form of drive to make them characters at all.
But there is a film coming next year called Maleficent. I am not looking forward to it.
Maleficent is a wondrously evil character, deciding at a baby's christening when and how she will die and using the full forces of hell to ensure it will happen. When things are gently nudged astray, she turns this chain of events into a similarly sinister life for the child AND her loved one. Her motive? No invitation.
Let's face it, that's not her motive. Until that christening, she was in a state of cold war, waiting for a reason to attack. The invitation was her "we have found nuclear weapons in Afghanistan".
The movie is going to make her, according to wikipedia, "desperately seeking for acceptance".
Another think I'm not looking forward to is Starkid's upcoming musical Twisted, a Wicked meets Aladdin story. Since Aladdin's sort of arrogant and while the city's full of cut-throats and thieves, the sultan is morbidly obese.
Except the guards follow Jafar's orders. If the city is a violent place where thieves run amok, that is purely because he was too busy manipulating the sultan. The only time the guards actually make any progress in tracking a notorious thief, it's because Jafar is planning on using him to conquer the world.
We like villains for being villains. We may like the villains, but we like them as an opponent more than an ally. The more we support the villains, the more we don't want the heroes to win. They're the conflict of the story and if they're in a good mood, we're not and vice versa. It just sucks to be watching a film and the moment where you once went "F*CK YEAH!", you now go "No, Jonathan!".
Monday, 8 April 2013
Monday, 25 February 2013
Adaptations
I have just today seen Wreck-it Ralph. It was awesome for many different reasons. I do find the time delay from America to England (which speaks the same language) absolutely absurd, but there's not much I can say about that.
What I WILL say is that it has succeeded in a genre that so many films have failed in. I consider it to be the first utterly good adaptation of videogames that the film industry has created.
Films tend to do that. While some studios like to take risks and push the boundaries of what films can accomplish, most like to sit in one place and make safe profits. And it also helps their writers if the story already exists. In order to do this, they disregard originality and adapt a story that already exists.
Books are good for this. They are a medium that can't be seen in motion, so a film is a nice depiction for the people who want the story but can't be bothered with the book. In the case of Da Vinci Code, most people agree this is better.
The same goes for comic books, which helps considering the writers tend to add a little to help translate a small book into a 2 hour movie with often no dramatic narration.
Video games get a little more iffy, since they are already a visual medium where there's not much added. In fact, there's more taken away than added. You will have to lose control over the character, the flexibility in designing the face (if it's not live action, we're just watching a cutscene), 20 hours of gameplay, cool game mechanics, immersion and a large chunk of story. And this will annoy many people.
It's a two way street between video games and films. Films know they can make money with a licenced game, so they make a quick one at minimal cost to replicate the story of the film in a game format. Films tell a more fluid story than a game can portray, and the plot will get interrupted every so often in order to add some padding. We know the story, and the game will likely add nothing new to the film other than padding techniques.
The worst game ever created was a licenced game (either Superman 64 or ET 2600, depending on who you ask), since they're cheep cash-ins on something actually popular.
I would also mention when people try to turn television series into films, but this is just so retarded it's not worth mentioning. I mean, come on! A visual medium being turned into a visual medium that's functionally identical but far shorter? Please... (hint, M Night, hint)
The good adaptations are where they try to be original while still adapting. The Pokemon anime took the basic outline of the pokemon story, but treated it as more an original character in the pokemon world following his own, much more detailed story. We can complain they get the game mechanics wrong, but they're so far away from the story that we can't criticise it for being different.
Wreck-it Ralph just took the characters and concept of arcade videogames, and used it as a jumping point for a story about it being okay to be the bad guy if you're a good guy at heart. The settings are incredibly videogame, and all the characters are nothing but videogame stereotypes, but they go on a story that we can all like for its originality.
Although watching Wreck-it Ralph, I can't help but think a game where it's just SSB with the characters would be fun as friggity friggity froo.
What I WILL say is that it has succeeded in a genre that so many films have failed in. I consider it to be the first utterly good adaptation of videogames that the film industry has created.
Films tend to do that. While some studios like to take risks and push the boundaries of what films can accomplish, most like to sit in one place and make safe profits. And it also helps their writers if the story already exists. In order to do this, they disregard originality and adapt a story that already exists.
Books are good for this. They are a medium that can't be seen in motion, so a film is a nice depiction for the people who want the story but can't be bothered with the book. In the case of Da Vinci Code, most people agree this is better.
The same goes for comic books, which helps considering the writers tend to add a little to help translate a small book into a 2 hour movie with often no dramatic narration.
Video games get a little more iffy, since they are already a visual medium where there's not much added. In fact, there's more taken away than added. You will have to lose control over the character, the flexibility in designing the face (if it's not live action, we're just watching a cutscene), 20 hours of gameplay, cool game mechanics, immersion and a large chunk of story. And this will annoy many people.
It's a two way street between video games and films. Films know they can make money with a licenced game, so they make a quick one at minimal cost to replicate the story of the film in a game format. Films tell a more fluid story than a game can portray, and the plot will get interrupted every so often in order to add some padding. We know the story, and the game will likely add nothing new to the film other than padding techniques.
The worst game ever created was a licenced game (either Superman 64 or ET 2600, depending on who you ask), since they're cheep cash-ins on something actually popular.
I would also mention when people try to turn television series into films, but this is just so retarded it's not worth mentioning. I mean, come on! A visual medium being turned into a visual medium that's functionally identical but far shorter? Please... (hint, M Night, hint)
The good adaptations are where they try to be original while still adapting. The Pokemon anime took the basic outline of the pokemon story, but treated it as more an original character in the pokemon world following his own, much more detailed story. We can complain they get the game mechanics wrong, but they're so far away from the story that we can't criticise it for being different.
Wreck-it Ralph just took the characters and concept of arcade videogames, and used it as a jumping point for a story about it being okay to be the bad guy if you're a good guy at heart. The settings are incredibly videogame, and all the characters are nothing but videogame stereotypes, but they go on a story that we can all like for its originality.
Although watching Wreck-it Ralph, I can't help but think a game where it's just SSB with the characters would be fun as friggity friggity froo.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Starters
Okay, this may seem odd given how much I like pokemon, but I am not a fan of starter pokemon. Well, I guess not all of them are that bad, but the concept of them rather annoys me.
First off, let's discuss their catchability. Three pokemon in a region are gathered by a pokemon professor and a trainer is given one. As far as the games go, this is the only way to possibly get any of them. So why can't you find this mythical Oshawott nature reserve and go to town on them safari zone style?
And if they don't show up in any location naturally that you can get to, why can so many other trainers own these guys? Gardenia owns a Turtwig, and it's clearly not her starter because it's not her strongest pokemon. Where did she catch it? Why won't she share this secret with me so I can save the cost of a second game in order to catch 'em all? Gardenia, why have you forsaken me?
Secondly, there's the choices. We have three: a grass, a water and a fire. Why these three? Why, of all the pokemon in the world, did you endeavour to catch three otherwise uncatchable pokemon just to give them to children? I would have had just as good an experience if I was given a Bellsprout instead of a Venusaur. They are functionally identical.
And why these exact types? Could a ghost type be so bad? I get the functionality of a water type means you'd be rather silly to not get one, but fire is mainly good due to it's power and grass has no functionality what so ever. It just serves to fill your team.
And don't tell me that choices vary between games, because Bianca gives the same choice to you that she got two years ago, and didn't mention a word about it being identical to her scenario.
And how come nobody else seems to have the restrictions I do? Okay, one person has a little more restriction, but he picked just to one up me. Or picked before something better than me with who knows what restriction. That Joey kid has a rattata, and I bet you he didn't have to bother with some silly "Rattata or Pidgey" scenario. Actually, I know he didn't. He would have picked the Pidgey.
Then there's the focus people seem to give these Pokemon. They get special moves and attention everywhere. There's fanart devoted to them for the specific reason that you weren't allowed to start with Magnemite. There is nothing special about them, but because you have to start with them, they are the best things in the world.
I reckon that, if Mudkip was just a normal pokemon and not a starter, the whole meme would be made about Diglett. Which would be the actual best thing ever, let me tell you.
And due to all the attention we give these guys because "HEY, STARTER!", they can very easily become the most overpowered member of the team. So many players have had a single level one hundred starter and maybe a legendary at about level fifty, but nothing else except HM slaves and space filler. I started having an even team around about Emerald after my Sapphire was nought more than "Ode to Blazekin ft. Kyogre".
Now to specific annoyances. Fire types. Let's ignore the fact that no responsible man of science would give a teenager a small demi-dragon with a lit flame on it and the power to produce more without secretly hating the child's mother (which is unlikely, given all the sex between them (I have said it, it must be canon!)). Let's instead talk about secondary typing.
Why do we have so many secondary types? We have had one Fire type without a secondary type, and he's one of my favourite pokemon ever. There has also been one Fire Flying, which is the worlds favourite pokemon ever. Sort of understandable, as I'd get one too during my play through if I didn't have much else.
The others are Fire Fighting. This has seen so many jokes I'm at a loss for original commentary about them all. Although generation five seemed to love fire fighting types so much it made Darmantian as well, but seemed to make a pokemon that visually fits Fire Dark the actual starter in order to avoid going from ape to ape.
Here's my suggestion for a starter system that people will like. Safari zone. You divide up a region into certain sections, with a little "zone" indicator for each. One will be a warm looking mountain, one will be a dense forest, one will be a lakeside and others will be decorative. A little opening spiel could be given about how the suppliers were being held back and the kid would have a more limited selection but would be allowed one free catch. It's obvious where to go to choose, and it makes it more interesting.
Then, later in the game, you can pay to use this place again. The pokemon types will have increased, but you'll be perfectly capable to catch the other ones again. No random choice, no lack of habitat, no stringent restrictions and plotholes in others having them. It's just you having a chance at more starters.
And then, you can have a second game. I'd complain about challenge mode's implementation, but this is easier. Your sponsor could visit you after you beat the elite four and suggest you try again, see if you can hold your title. Everyone will look at the champion and try harder to beat them, making the strength difficulty better. Suggesting to retry the challenge, he'll take your pokemon into a box you can't access until you beat the elite four. He gives out TMs after a set checkpoint, which will restrict your move set until it's reasonable.
Dialogue will change, and the villain plotline will have to be replaced in order to keep the story length, but you still get to keep your original story intact, and fans will feel even more badass for the reputation actually existing.
Oh, and remember the incoming pokemon? The second catching fest will also give you one free pokemon, but your options increase greatly. What's not to like?
First off, let's discuss their catchability. Three pokemon in a region are gathered by a pokemon professor and a trainer is given one. As far as the games go, this is the only way to possibly get any of them. So why can't you find this mythical Oshawott nature reserve and go to town on them safari zone style?
And if they don't show up in any location naturally that you can get to, why can so many other trainers own these guys? Gardenia owns a Turtwig, and it's clearly not her starter because it's not her strongest pokemon. Where did she catch it? Why won't she share this secret with me so I can save the cost of a second game in order to catch 'em all? Gardenia, why have you forsaken me?
Secondly, there's the choices. We have three: a grass, a water and a fire. Why these three? Why, of all the pokemon in the world, did you endeavour to catch three otherwise uncatchable pokemon just to give them to children? I would have had just as good an experience if I was given a Bellsprout instead of a Venusaur. They are functionally identical.
And why these exact types? Could a ghost type be so bad? I get the functionality of a water type means you'd be rather silly to not get one, but fire is mainly good due to it's power and grass has no functionality what so ever. It just serves to fill your team.
And don't tell me that choices vary between games, because Bianca gives the same choice to you that she got two years ago, and didn't mention a word about it being identical to her scenario.
And how come nobody else seems to have the restrictions I do? Okay, one person has a little more restriction, but he picked just to one up me. Or picked before something better than me with who knows what restriction. That Joey kid has a rattata, and I bet you he didn't have to bother with some silly "Rattata or Pidgey" scenario. Actually, I know he didn't. He would have picked the Pidgey.
Then there's the focus people seem to give these Pokemon. They get special moves and attention everywhere. There's fanart devoted to them for the specific reason that you weren't allowed to start with Magnemite. There is nothing special about them, but because you have to start with them, they are the best things in the world.
I reckon that, if Mudkip was just a normal pokemon and not a starter, the whole meme would be made about Diglett. Which would be the actual best thing ever, let me tell you.
And due to all the attention we give these guys because "HEY, STARTER!", they can very easily become the most overpowered member of the team. So many players have had a single level one hundred starter and maybe a legendary at about level fifty, but nothing else except HM slaves and space filler. I started having an even team around about Emerald after my Sapphire was nought more than "Ode to Blazekin ft. Kyogre".
Now to specific annoyances. Fire types. Let's ignore the fact that no responsible man of science would give a teenager a small demi-dragon with a lit flame on it and the power to produce more without secretly hating the child's mother (which is unlikely, given all the sex between them (I have said it, it must be canon!)). Let's instead talk about secondary typing.
Why do we have so many secondary types? We have had one Fire type without a secondary type, and he's one of my favourite pokemon ever. There has also been one Fire Flying, which is the worlds favourite pokemon ever. Sort of understandable, as I'd get one too during my play through if I didn't have much else.
The others are Fire Fighting. This has seen so many jokes I'm at a loss for original commentary about them all. Although generation five seemed to love fire fighting types so much it made Darmantian as well, but seemed to make a pokemon that visually fits Fire Dark the actual starter in order to avoid going from ape to ape.
Here's my suggestion for a starter system that people will like. Safari zone. You divide up a region into certain sections, with a little "zone" indicator for each. One will be a warm looking mountain, one will be a dense forest, one will be a lakeside and others will be decorative. A little opening spiel could be given about how the suppliers were being held back and the kid would have a more limited selection but would be allowed one free catch. It's obvious where to go to choose, and it makes it more interesting.
Then, later in the game, you can pay to use this place again. The pokemon types will have increased, but you'll be perfectly capable to catch the other ones again. No random choice, no lack of habitat, no stringent restrictions and plotholes in others having them. It's just you having a chance at more starters.
And then, you can have a second game. I'd complain about challenge mode's implementation, but this is easier. Your sponsor could visit you after you beat the elite four and suggest you try again, see if you can hold your title. Everyone will look at the champion and try harder to beat them, making the strength difficulty better. Suggesting to retry the challenge, he'll take your pokemon into a box you can't access until you beat the elite four. He gives out TMs after a set checkpoint, which will restrict your move set until it's reasonable.
Dialogue will change, and the villain plotline will have to be replaced in order to keep the story length, but you still get to keep your original story intact, and fans will feel even more badass for the reputation actually existing.
Oh, and remember the incoming pokemon? The second catching fest will also give you one free pokemon, but your options increase greatly. What's not to like?
Thursday, 27 December 2012
My favourite things (not a song)
I figured I'd make a list. I like lists. All... listy. They're so practical!
Now, if you don't know what this is about, then read the title. I question why you didn't. Mad person. Angel has not been included so I can have something in the top five that isn't her.
Hoverboards were the peak of science idealisation which was the least likely to result in heavy injury to both user and civilian (I'm looking at you, jetpack). They're lightweight (literally), fast and pretty cheep to run! They come in a whole host of models, such as the mini-scoot or the Maddog, and each one of them has their own neat little touch.
I seriously could not imagine life without... Huh... According to wikipedia, they haven't been invented yet. I shall thus work on suppressing my rage, no matter how hard it tries to escape me. Stone faced. Totally pensive...
...Ahem...
But don't get me wrong. I don't like pretentious stories. There is a line between a clever story that wraps up the viewers imagination or delivers a strong sense of emotion and a story written to be clever and above you which any fan will defend with the phrase "you don't get it, do you?". If someone doesn't get it, then the story's not that well written.
Although, not all stories I like have to be written. Sometimes, it's a clever concept for a story that can impress me. Patented to Eadyu on deviantArt, there is a character for her series who is a vampire with a pretty impressive difference. Instead of vegetarianism or sparkling or immunity to sunlight, he has an overbite. How cool is that?! Screw teenage sex symbolism, I want a vampire with an overbite!
Alright, some stories are laughable. However, there is a theory that a horrible story can be made good if the right author gets a hold of it. Imagine if twilight was written by an author who turned Bella from a mary sue to a simple, self obsessed girl who grows to feel guilt over how disastrous her desires turn out but how powerless she is to stop it. You could even add in a moral about making the best out of life, no matter how bad it goes. Maybe you'd have to heavily tweak the baby subplot, but there's a chance for something good somewhere in there.
...It's a massive stretch, but I stand by the good-fiction version of rule 34.
Apparently, she's so awesome that she hijacked the list. Pretend I said "the potential tablet pc hologram systems of the future" and let's move on.
I am adding this to my Pokemon outfit! In the occasion that I am in a pokemon adventure, I will pick this Gilet as one of my costume choices. There's a white t-shirt and blue open shirt combo that I'll wear about half the time and a black t-shirt and blue gilet combo for other occasions. The pockets make it really handy for storing items and pokeballs and such. Only pokedex and pokemon, of course.
I admit I got this in order to complete a cosplay outfit, but that just counts as another bonus to me.
---
So that's my list. Now you know. Use it as you will. :)
Now, if you don't know what this is about, then read the title. I question why you didn't. Mad person. Angel has not been included so I can have something in the top five that isn't her.
5: Hoverboards
I mean, come on. They are wicked cool! I got mine in pink, because it's a manly colour!Hoverboards were the peak of science idealisation which was the least likely to result in heavy injury to both user and civilian (I'm looking at you, jetpack). They're lightweight (literally), fast and pretty cheep to run! They come in a whole host of models, such as the mini-scoot or the Maddog, and each one of them has their own neat little touch.
I seriously could not imagine life without... Huh... According to wikipedia, they haven't been invented yet. I shall thus work on suppressing my rage, no matter how hard it tries to escape me. Stone faced. Totally pensive...
4: A goo- WHERE'S MY HOVERBOARD?!?!
I have waited and waited since I first saw Back to the Future 2. The hoverboard is the reason why it's my favourite film of all! I know I have to wait for 2015, but there should at least be legitimate video footage of the prototype! I WANT MY HOVERBOARD!!!...Ahem...
4: A good story
Yup! I love me a nice strong tale. Be it fairy tale or Die Hard, I simply love a clever story.But don't get me wrong. I don't like pretentious stories. There is a line between a clever story that wraps up the viewers imagination or delivers a strong sense of emotion and a story written to be clever and above you which any fan will defend with the phrase "you don't get it, do you?". If someone doesn't get it, then the story's not that well written.
Although, not all stories I like have to be written. Sometimes, it's a clever concept for a story that can impress me. Patented to Eadyu on deviantArt, there is a character for her series who is a vampire with a pretty impressive difference. Instead of vegetarianism or sparkling or immunity to sunlight, he has an overbite. How cool is that?! Screw teenage sex symbolism, I want a vampire with an overbite!
Alright, some stories are laughable. However, there is a theory that a horrible story can be made good if the right author gets a hold of it. Imagine if twilight was written by an author who turned Bella from a mary sue to a simple, self obsessed girl who grows to feel guilt over how disastrous her desires turn out but how powerless she is to stop it. You could even add in a moral about making the best out of life, no matter how bad it goes. Maybe you'd have to heavily tweak the baby subplot, but there's a chance for something good somewhere in there.
...It's a massive stretch, but I stand by the good-fiction version of rule 34.
3: Angel
How did this get in here? I said I wouldn't include her!Apparently, she's so awesome that she hijacked the list. Pretend I said "the potential tablet pc hologram systems of the future" and let's move on.
2: This Gilet I am Currently Wearing
It is so awesome! This beats hoodies! It's light, quick to put on, a lot of pockets and stylish as heck! I'll admit it's more of a summer clothing choice, but I wear it in winter whenever I get the chance!I am adding this to my Pokemon outfit! In the occasion that I am in a pokemon adventure, I will pick this Gilet as one of my costume choices. There's a white t-shirt and blue open shirt combo that I'll wear about half the time and a black t-shirt and blue gilet combo for other occasions. The pockets make it really handy for storing items and pokeballs and such. Only pokedex and pokemon, of course.
I admit I got this in order to complete a cosplay outfit, but that just counts as another bonus to me.
1: Happiness
Just in general. Best emotion. I think I've already discussed this, and if I haven't, then you can bet you won't be all that interested.---
So that's my list. Now you know. Use it as you will. :)
Monday, 24 December 2012
Livestreaming
Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house
I blogged about something completely different.
With the popularity of the Yogscast, Captain Sparklez and the like, livestreams are extremely popula. Having sites such as Twitch.TV around make it all the easier for amateur gamers to create a livestream and gain a small following.
These are not always good. I have seen some pretty bad livestreams in my time and some pretty enjoyable ones too. There is also a difference I have noticed between them.
It's quite honestly impossible to describe what is good about things and be funny. Mentioning them means that they will be done to the letter by the masses who want to be good but aren't. However, it's more than possible to give a list of reasons why a particular work is bad.
That's why so many people will make Minecraft streams playing out survival games. They don't want to add anything new to their streams because people will just look at them and think they'll be terrible for being different. And different is scary.
No, much more sensible would be to do exactly what that popular guy is doing.
Secondly, you need to be dull. People came to see a guy play a single player game, not to see an entertainment act. Remember how much fun you had when your friend invited you over to his house and then played final fantasy while you just sat there and watched? And not even conversation, because that gets in the way of the game.
No, just sit there, play the game, and occasionally go "ah, you bugger" when someone kills you. This is why the most popular person to live off of playing video games is a mute.
Third off, you need to win literally everything. Losers aren't any fun. Why would anyone who both plays video games and watches other people play video games online want to have anything to do with a loser?
It doesn't matter how you win. If you have to get cheep shots in with the ultimate noob tactics, go for it. If you ever lose, complain. Everyone watches amateur videos to watch a pro, that's just common knowledge.
Fourth, no pauses in the sound. You need constant audio in order to make sure everyone is aware there is a working microphone on the other end of the video. A good way of having this is to have music playing. It works best if it's spotify on your computer playing the music.
Now, there's a specific tendency in this music. Smooth jazz has been and gone, so playing this will get you rejected by the post 1940's crowd. Rock is a hit and miss genre, and only really works if it's loud, obnoxious and you can't tell what the lyrics are due to the screaming. One genre that never fails is rap music. Rap music with a constant beat and a smellable feeling of "I'm cool" will always fill the air and keep the dim viewers respect you.
You have to maintain constant view of what you see. It adds to the immersion. Breaking the view of the game so the crowd can see you interact with the recording equipment will remind the viewers of their experience interacting with the recording equipment. The more it happens, the better you are!
Also, have skype sounds on. Have people randomly come in when they talk to you. More voices make this seem fun. But still remember to barely interact with them at all, so you can remain untalking and dull, as mentioned earlier.
Remember all these steps and you'll do fine.
Oh! One more! Get my name wrong! If you say Susaga the proper way (Su-sar-ga) then you'll frighten folk. Say it Saugage-a or Suger-a. Much simpler.
Update: I forgot some!!!
You should also advertise everywhere! Literally. If you're streaming, you still have time to advertise. The people watching this will think highly of you and you won't seem at all like a glory-monger who goes around scrounging viewers from everywhere he can think of. I'm sure you could even ask the people you're playing alongside to watch, given how they're not busy or anything.
You need, more than anything, low video quality. If you can see more than 10 frames in a second, start running a couple tabs of youtube in the background. This can also help provide music, so you're technically saving time!
I blogged about something completely different.
With the popularity of the Yogscast, Captain Sparklez and the like, livestreams are extremely popula. Having sites such as Twitch.TV around make it all the easier for amateur gamers to create a livestream and gain a small following.
These are not always good. I have seen some pretty bad livestreams in my time and some pretty enjoyable ones too. There is also a difference I have noticed between them.
It's quite honestly impossible to describe what is good about things and be funny. Mentioning them means that they will be done to the letter by the masses who want to be good but aren't. However, it's more than possible to give a list of reasons why a particular work is bad.
How to create a terrible livestream
Firstly, you have to copy everyone! See that guy doing a popular game? Do people like him? I bet it's because he's doing that popular game. It's an absolute law of nature that when people try to be successful, they blatantly rip off already successful people as much as they can.That's why so many people will make Minecraft streams playing out survival games. They don't want to add anything new to their streams because people will just look at them and think they'll be terrible for being different. And different is scary.
No, much more sensible would be to do exactly what that popular guy is doing.
Secondly, you need to be dull. People came to see a guy play a single player game, not to see an entertainment act. Remember how much fun you had when your friend invited you over to his house and then played final fantasy while you just sat there and watched? And not even conversation, because that gets in the way of the game.
No, just sit there, play the game, and occasionally go "ah, you bugger" when someone kills you. This is why the most popular person to live off of playing video games is a mute.
Third off, you need to win literally everything. Losers aren't any fun. Why would anyone who both plays video games and watches other people play video games online want to have anything to do with a loser?
It doesn't matter how you win. If you have to get cheep shots in with the ultimate noob tactics, go for it. If you ever lose, complain. Everyone watches amateur videos to watch a pro, that's just common knowledge.
Fourth, no pauses in the sound. You need constant audio in order to make sure everyone is aware there is a working microphone on the other end of the video. A good way of having this is to have music playing. It works best if it's spotify on your computer playing the music.
Now, there's a specific tendency in this music. Smooth jazz has been and gone, so playing this will get you rejected by the post 1940's crowd. Rock is a hit and miss genre, and only really works if it's loud, obnoxious and you can't tell what the lyrics are due to the screaming. One genre that never fails is rap music. Rap music with a constant beat and a smellable feeling of "I'm cool" will always fill the air and keep the dim viewers respect you.
You have to maintain constant view of what you see. It adds to the immersion. Breaking the view of the game so the crowd can see you interact with the recording equipment will remind the viewers of their experience interacting with the recording equipment. The more it happens, the better you are!
Also, have skype sounds on. Have people randomly come in when they talk to you. More voices make this seem fun. But still remember to barely interact with them at all, so you can remain untalking and dull, as mentioned earlier.
Remember all these steps and you'll do fine.
Oh! One more! Get my name wrong! If you say Susaga the proper way (Su-sar-ga) then you'll frighten folk. Say it Saugage-a or Suger-a. Much simpler.
Update: I forgot some!!!
You should also advertise everywhere! Literally. If you're streaming, you still have time to advertise. The people watching this will think highly of you and you won't seem at all like a glory-monger who goes around scrounging viewers from everywhere he can think of. I'm sure you could even ask the people you're playing alongside to watch, given how they're not busy or anything.
You need, more than anything, low video quality. If you can see more than 10 frames in a second, start running a couple tabs of youtube in the background. This can also help provide music, so you're technically saving time!
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
The Zelda Awards, Part 4
This is, I hope to Steve, the final part. If there's anything more to say, I CBA to say it. I did this for the Zant thing, so feel lucky you have this.
Best Gameplay
Okay, I'm not very old. I have played OOT on Nintendo 64, but I was so gorram old I barely remember it. The controls for this will therefore be outsourced to the gamecube. But since these ARE games, then gameplay is an important feature.
Coming in at the bottom we have Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The gameplay is nearly identical, save some little features. They did use the features of the DS spectacularly (one puzzle requires you to close the DS for a moment, and one guy mentions blowing into the mic is indistinguishable from shouting) but it seemed slightly restricted. When you're sailing, you have to draw your path and must stick to it. When you're riding the trains, you have to follow these paths despite the fact I can see exactly where I want to go. I can walk. I've done so before. And so often have I drawn the path for a spin attack only for him to slash a bit because it only noticed half the circle. Just not as immersive as other gameplay styles.
Next we have OOT. It was a brilliant entry gameplay style for 3D games, but there were a few kinks in the system, which is to be expected. I can vividly remember having to wait for the option for push to become climb, the arrow marker being a little unreliable, and long conversations that were almost designed for you to skip through them and get annoyed. Nothing too far wrong with it, but I think of the other gameplay styles as better.
Skyward Sword comes next for the specific reason of how they used the gameplay. The gameplay is definitely fun, but the fact that almost every aspect of it is based off of a new mechanic, it loses its appeal. WiiMotion plus was cool. Having opponents you had to target in specific ways was fun. Boss rush was hella fun. Timeshift stones made it really interesting when I gave my enemies technical deaths. But the fact that combat, flight, menu selection and certain puzzle solving areas all required one feature, it lost its appeal. Also, you had to be quite precise to do a lot of actions, so lazy gamers who hold their hand up half way get annoyed.
Next, we have Twilight Princess. Which makes sense. It's less precise than Skyward Sword, but menu selection was the good old targeting while combat was motion controls. Boar riding was always interesting, the western scene was so good I created its own separate save file to play it again, and while certain specific combat techniques were rarely, if ever, used, when you do use them, you feel badass. Basically, most of the good things about SS without forcing it.
Finally, at the top of the pile, Wind Waker. Right from the outset (island), I considered the controls to be, and this is my honest opinion, "like Ocarina of Time, but better". I found the c buttons, designed for use of camera work and then named "C" because of the "C" in "Camera", much more sensible than each button being an item or Navi. Having A act as the reaction button made more sense, and the R button being crouching/crawling/grabbing saved approximately 5 hours of climbing/pushing gameplay. Plus, you lose your sword and enter a stealth mission. Rarely could that work in an action adventure! The reaction attacks worked delightfully, making you feel badass for either doing epic feats or correctly guiding those epic feats to disarmour a Dark Nut.
And one final thing to note is that you're fighting a tower built to test you. You have to use a bow to kill the end boss. If you run out of arrows in fighting him, he gives you more so you're accurately tested.
Best Story
Every epic quest needs a story, does it not? So, the better story reflects well on the game, right? Yes.
Spirit Tracks and Phantom Hourglass come here again. Spirit Tracks comes slightly ahead for the whole Byrne storyline (why was his name changed over here?) but they're both a lot less substantial than any of the others. Less dungeons, a smaller sense of things going on behind you, and while certain characters shine through, they're not enough to carry the entire world.
Then comes Ocarina. It was a pretty original game in its time, so you can remember it as being good in its day. And it was. Shiek is Zelda hiding from Ganondorf, Ganondorf tracks your every action and waits for you to accidentally help him, and Link has a booty call over in that there desert. It also split the timeline while being meant as a prequel to the original games (Wind Waker forced them into a third). But overall, the plot is quite subdued. It's just a fact.
Then comes Twilight Princess. Midna is a highly developed character, who has suffered heavy loss, distrust to everything and slowly begins to respect and care for you as the game progresses and you get slapped by a Goron. Colin is a small child who cowers at everything who has a turning point of courage, sacrificing himself as a victim to protect a friend with courage learned from idolising Link. But aside from these people, the storylines are small and forgettable. And even these themselves could have gotten more limelight.
Following is Skyward Sword. Ghirahim was a good driving villain, Zelda's master plan was quite interesting to discover, Grooses development, Ghirahim's back-up plan, Pipit's knight training and romance with Karane... There was so much going on that every character you meet is developed and the world seems a lot more full for that. The triforce defeating Demise seemed a little bit like a cop-out, and the third time you have trials means you just have to question things.
Then comes Majora's Mask. The whole thing is a metaphor built with graphics from Ocarina. The different regions represent the stages of grief, the quest happens because Link goes searching for his childhood fairy, and every side story has some aspect of growing up and reaching maturity. Heck, you can trade every mask you get from the side stories for a mask that makes you, for all intents and purposes, an adult. This is the coming of age story for a boy who was forced into the body of a man without ever growing up.
Finally? Well, what's the only other game I've been mentioning here? Wind Waker. The core story follows just four main characters as they learn to move on from the ways of the old and create a new world or drown in the old one. Link isn't a hero of legend that comes to the rescue from out of the blue (the intro even says how bad that actually was), but a child who pursues the creature kidnapping his sister. He's not proving he is a hero, he's earning the right to be called a hero. Every character has some hidden depth to them, so they're more than just background with an action and some dialogue.
Best Game
This is subjective, and I won't be rating them all for laziness sake.
My favourite of all the Zelda games? Wind Waker. It just works. You can sail in a huge environment, fight some pretty darn fun enemies in some darn fun situations, engage with all the right people, develop otherwise undeveloped stories, force Link into wearing pyjamas and really feel for this world, with some nice and comic moments along the way. And there's an actual person with a position of power shown.
---
That's it. Go away now.
The Zelda Awards, part 3
Bla bla opening spiel. Let's get on with part three!
Skyward Sword, despite being highly varied in the world map, was a little lacking. It was highly dense, allowing you to traverse the dense woods and honestly believe them to be as dense as depicted. The mountain was tall and fun to climb. The desert was an interesting puzzle to not drown in. The sky was remarkably large. However, it is the freaking sky, so it could have been larger and had more stuff in it. Aside from Skyloft and the thundercloud, I only used the sky to get to other non-sky places. And on the ground, I was really hoping I could find a way between the various regions. The game was plenty epic, but it could have been bigger.
Ocarina of Time has a very good map. The castle, the lake, the zora's domain, the massive mountain... Every place was distinct and suited to the atmosphere it needed. It was much easier to get lost in the lost woods than in other games. However, a number of issues can be raised. The desert didn't seem as big given you can barely see ten feet, the woods was more separated by rock than tree, death mountain seemed a lot more horizontal than vertical, some shortcuts seemed a little too quick for the distance travelled and the civilised world seemed a little divided.
Twilight princess comes next. It reflected the OOT map closely with a few changes for practicality, the desert seemed freaking enormous, the woods were very woodsy, the fields were large and sprawling and the castle stood in the middle of the kingdom. Again, my issue with death mountain is the horizontal feeling it gives and the desert was something that irked me in its connection, as there is no non-magical method to return from that landscape. And if you hadn't scoured every section of the desert, like me, and found the twilight portal, there's only one way to get there.
And the winner is Wind Waker. It's one of the only other contenders with Hyrule in it, albeit a heavily flooded version. Literally every square has something interesting in it. You can be sailing far and not see anything in any direction, which really adds to size. Along the way, you can accidentally find another island and hunt down the painter fish, find a beacon of light and search for treasure, or notice an outpost and kill some bokoblins. My only issue is that it supposedly correlates to Hyrule below it, but looking at old hyrule, there aren't many mountains, and they're definitely not close enough for them all to walk that distance. And how did the Kokiri get that tree inside a mountain?
Ocarina of Time was limited by the console capabilities, but it still has to be judged. Not even the ground was that smooth, and the style suffers for it.
Wind Waker went for cell shaded cartoonish art which I find quite appealing. It allowed for good expression, and not one creature in the game looked particularly silly. Except the Chus, but they're always silly.
Twilight Princess went for realism, and it works. The blond became a softer shade of brown, and all creatures had to become what they would realistically be, which was quite a think. The darknuts looked as strong as they ever did in this.
Skyward Sword took the best of both worlds, going with the soft cell shading of Wind Waker and the realism of Twilight Princess. The result was perfect for the world and the creatures they wanted to show, and the first time I saw it, I approved.
Best World Map
Hyrule has taken many many forms in its years. At one point, it was a lush field highly divided. At another, it was just wet. Every fantasy needs its kingdom, and here's the best renditions of it.Skyward Sword, despite being highly varied in the world map, was a little lacking. It was highly dense, allowing you to traverse the dense woods and honestly believe them to be as dense as depicted. The mountain was tall and fun to climb. The desert was an interesting puzzle to not drown in. The sky was remarkably large. However, it is the freaking sky, so it could have been larger and had more stuff in it. Aside from Skyloft and the thundercloud, I only used the sky to get to other non-sky places. And on the ground, I was really hoping I could find a way between the various regions. The game was plenty epic, but it could have been bigger.
Ocarina of Time has a very good map. The castle, the lake, the zora's domain, the massive mountain... Every place was distinct and suited to the atmosphere it needed. It was much easier to get lost in the lost woods than in other games. However, a number of issues can be raised. The desert didn't seem as big given you can barely see ten feet, the woods was more separated by rock than tree, death mountain seemed a lot more horizontal than vertical, some shortcuts seemed a little too quick for the distance travelled and the civilised world seemed a little divided.
Twilight princess comes next. It reflected the OOT map closely with a few changes for practicality, the desert seemed freaking enormous, the woods were very woodsy, the fields were large and sprawling and the castle stood in the middle of the kingdom. Again, my issue with death mountain is the horizontal feeling it gives and the desert was something that irked me in its connection, as there is no non-magical method to return from that landscape. And if you hadn't scoured every section of the desert, like me, and found the twilight portal, there's only one way to get there.
And the winner is Wind Waker. It's one of the only other contenders with Hyrule in it, albeit a heavily flooded version. Literally every square has something interesting in it. You can be sailing far and not see anything in any direction, which really adds to size. Along the way, you can accidentally find another island and hunt down the painter fish, find a beacon of light and search for treasure, or notice an outpost and kill some bokoblins. My only issue is that it supposedly correlates to Hyrule below it, but looking at old hyrule, there aren't many mountains, and they're definitely not close enough for them all to walk that distance. And how did the Kokiri get that tree inside a mountain?
Best Artstyle
This is subjective, but I have to be honest. And there's not a lot to say, so this will be a short section.Ocarina of Time was limited by the console capabilities, but it still has to be judged. Not even the ground was that smooth, and the style suffers for it.
Wind Waker went for cell shaded cartoonish art which I find quite appealing. It allowed for good expression, and not one creature in the game looked particularly silly. Except the Chus, but they're always silly.
Twilight Princess went for realism, and it works. The blond became a softer shade of brown, and all creatures had to become what they would realistically be, which was quite a think. The darknuts looked as strong as they ever did in this.
Skyward Sword took the best of both worlds, going with the soft cell shading of Wind Waker and the realism of Twilight Princess. The result was perfect for the world and the creatures they wanted to show, and the first time I saw it, I approved.
Best Sidequests
A world only has depth when everything in it is not a flat cardboard cutout of a person made to fill the space. To develop the minorest of minor characters, you give them sidequests. This also helps to fill the game time, handily enough. This excludes minigames.
Twilight Princess had several sidequests: Agitha's bug ball, Jovani's curse, Goron Spring Water and Magic Armour. None of these are as valuable as the benefits would claim, considering your 1000 rupee limit and the difficulty in finding all those grottos.
Ocarina of Time did not have many sidequests in its world. Everything seemed to progress the main story, or wasn't worth creating. To my memory, there are four sidequests: the house of skulltula, the happy mask salesman, Epona and the biggoron sword. Epona was also a feature that substantially makes the game easier and faster, Biggoron was a guide-dang-it of the century, I'm not sure if anyone actually found it worth while to beat the skulltula curse and the mask quest was over before it started, if you knew where to go.
Wind Waker had a good number of side quests, given the simplicity to wind up doing something you weren't meant to. The Goron Merchants, the pair of shy lovers, the moon lover, the poor to rich girl, the rich to poor thief girl, the Koron tree planting and so many others. And none of them feel tiring! Well, the tree planting...
Skyward Sword comes next, with its bunch of gratitude crystals. The sidequest as a whole is a surprise, given how you're prepared for a fight to protect Skyloft, and suddenly you have to make every member happy. You learn more about them, find stuff that fell or never was in the sky to begin with, use your skills or even just use a love letter for crap-wipe. And it keeps you interested. Plus the boss-rush...
And finally, Majora's Mask. There are twenty masks. Very few are for the storyline. You work out why MM is on top here.
---
And that's part three. I'm nearing the end, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)